Patch for kjas (was: Java applets and ConfigureRequest)

[Koos Vriezen]

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 06:00:10PM +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Saturday 06 of December 2003 20:52, Koos Vriezen wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Koos Vriezen wrote:
> >
> > Why do I always come with fresh ideas after discribing a problem and
> > sending it to kfm-devel?
> > Anyway, attached a patch that fixes the gray rectangle problem, simply by
> > calling 'frame.setUndecorated(true)'. Also changing JFrame to Frame,
> > saving three parents layering (actually the JPanel can be skipped to, but
> > leave it for now). I finally can use teletext on http://www.n-tv.de/ again
> > w/o random buttons not coming up)
> > Please review.
> >
> > (of course, what has changed in kwin/qxembed that java windows needs this
> > now?)
> 
>  I'm not sure if I can count as somebody capable of reviewing your patch, as I 
> know nothing about all this Java stuff, but I think I can explain the 
> background.
> 
>  If I understood it correctly, in Java one specifies window sizes _including_ 
> border sizes (i.e. the decorations added by the WM), which is serious 
> braindamage from the X11 point of view, as it is difficult to reliably find 
> out, you don't know it before showing the window, and so on.

Looks more like the MS world indeed..

> Java 
> implementations probably use some weird tricks to find it out somehow, and in 
> the (for them unexpected) case the window is reparented not inside a WM but 
> inside an app they get it wrong. Moreover, I remember fixing some strange bug 
> last week where Java detected KDE and used really weird and broken tricks.

And it's racy, about 80% it does manage to get it right somehow..
 
>  If you turn off borders in Java, that'll make it clear that all the borders 
> sizes are 0, and Java will get it right. So, without knowing what your patch 
> really does, I'd say your patch is right.

There is one side effect for konq users with another wm. They used to get
decorated floating applets and will get floating undecorated ones now.
Oh well, at least that gives the impression we're working on it :-)

>  You can also see 
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/wm-spec-list/2003-December/msg00005.html and 
> the links listed there - we're currently discussing adding some WM hacks for 
> it - apparently Wine needs it too.

Interesting.

Thanks for your comments,

Koos